Kinda reminds me of the old joke................What is the difference between the Cardinals, White Sox and cubs? The Cards and our Sox have won World Championships in their new stadiums.......the cubs haven't yet. (THINK ABOUT IT!!)

Kinda reminds me of the old joke................What is the difference between the Cardinals, White Sox and cubs? The Cards and our Sox have won World Championships in their new stadiums.......the cubs haven't yet. (THINK ABOUT IT!!)

oh the curses.

__________________
2015: hoping we traded a donkey for a stud at DH. If departure patterns hold true, playoffs are in the future. GO SOX!

They are willing to pay for it themselves if some landmark restrictions are relaxed. I don't know why anyone would be opposed to that. Everything will be new. The renderings actually look pretty nice.

I give Ricketts credit. He knows his cash cow is the ballpark and not the team on the field. If they happen to win, great, however he is going to invest where he can continue to get his biggest return.

I can see him eventually buying out some of the roof-top owners/buildings as well.

I give Ricketts credit. He knows his cash cow is the ballpark and not the team on the field. If they happen to win, great, however he is going to invest where he can continue to get his biggest return.

I can see him eventually buying out some of the roof-top owners/buildings as well.

They sell out their games already. The team sucks, so they can't increase the prices too much. How will they make up the $300,000,000.00 he wants to spend? There will be new revenues from the hotel and any other stuff they build outside the stadium, but how long will it take them to recoup the money, especially if they are paying higher property taxes (which will happen regardless landmark status since some of the PINs are unimproved and will be jacked up once they build on them).

They sell out their games already. The team sucks, so they can't increase the prices too much. How will they make up the $300,000,000.00 he wants to spend? There will be new revenues from the hotel and any other stuff they build outside the stadium, but how long will it take them to recoup the money, especially if they are paying higher property taxes (which will happen regardless landmark status since some of the PINs are unimproved and will be jacked up once they build on them).

That is for him to worry about. If he's not asking for public money, I think Emanuel et al would be idiots not to ease the landmark restrictions.

That is for him to worry about. If he's not asking for public money, I think Emanuel et al would be idiots not to ease the landmark restrictions.

If they renovate "too much," the tourists might want to check out the Water Tower instead.

Right now, The Urinal has cache for how it looks now. If they start adding more display ads (can't do unless the landmark designation is changed) and whiz-bang electronics, then it is just another baseball stadium and not "beautiful Wrigley Field."

If they renovate "too much," the tourists might want to check out the Water Tower instead.

Right now, The Urinal has cache for how it looks now. If they start adding more display ads (can't do unless the landmark designation is changed) and whiz-bang electronics, then it is just another baseball stadium and not "beautiful Wrigley Field."

It's hard for me to believe that Ricketts and Epstein are as tone-deaf as they sometimes appear. Certainly they know that the ballpark is their golden goose and that they'd be fools to screw it up. The ball club is simply the activity that goes on inside the tourist attraction they operate.

They've got some real physical challenges to deal with. How do you add "42%" more restrooms, a fan deck in left field, an expanded clubhouse, more concession stands, etc., without significantly changing the appearance of the ballpark? Add to that the likely need to rebuild the 100 year-old structural core of the building and it becomes a major renovation. My guess is that they're willing to lose the landmark status if it allows them to increase their cash flow.

That place morphed a long time ago from a baseball park to a myth-imbued venue that was an ATM machine for the Tribune and still is now for Ricketts. Baseball is just one of the interchangeable events they host there.

Also I wonder if the Ricketts realize that dropping the Landmark status will remove the Class L property tax break on Wrigley for both the current park and any improvements to the park they may do.

I can't tell if the Cubs are receiving any Class L relief and that if the removal of the landmark status would result in a higher tax bill. I'm guessing whatever additional revenue the improvements would bring in would offset any additional increase in taxes. Anyways, the removal of the landmark status would give the Ricketts the ability to make changes to Wrigley without running every proposed idea through the government, which I imagine drags their feet.

Also, for 2011 the Cook County Fair Market Value for Wrigley Field was $32,119,984 with a real estate tax bill of $1,493,002.47.

If they renovate "too much," the tourists might want to check out the Water Tower instead.

Right now, The Urinal has cache for how it looks now. If they start adding more display ads (can't do unless the landmark designation is changed) and whiz-bang electronics, then it is just another baseball stadium and not "beautiful Wrigley Field."

I doubt that. Fenway has been gutted and tourists still talk about it like its some kind of shrine. Unless they tear Wrigley down to the foundation, people will still think the LED scoreboards and canned pop music are all part of the Jazz Age charm

If they renovate "too much," the tourists might want to check out the Water Tower instead.

Right now, The Urinal has cache for how it looks now. If they start adding more display ads (can't do unless the landmark designation is changed) and whiz-bang electronics, then it is just another baseball stadium and not "beautiful Wrigley Field."